Kroll Mark W, Luceri Richard M, Efimov Igor R, Calkins Hugh
From the Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Holy Cross Hospital (emeritus), Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2025 Mar 1;46(1):3-9. doi: 10.1097/PAF.0000000000000980. Epub 2024 Aug 2.
Our present understanding of electrocution followed a long path of detours and speculation. It is now hard to appreciate how mysterious was an unexpected sudden death-without visible trauma-and we should be sympathetic to the surprising theories that came from well-intentioned attempts to find something in the autopsy of an electrocution victim.The early hypotheses (1880s) tended to favor effects on the central nervous system, but the emphasis switched to arterial and hematological mechanisms as well as respiratory arrest (ie, asphyxia) along with a widespread publication debate. While careful animal experimentation slowly established that electrocution was due to the induction of VF (ventricular fibrillation), the older hypotheses held sway for many decades. Even today, the neurogenic and asphyxial explanations reappear occasionally.Despite 170 years of research, the phenomenon of electrocution continues to generate new hypotheses for its mechanism.
我们目前对触电致死的理解经历了漫长的弯路和推测过程。现在很难体会到，在没有明显外伤的情况下意外突然死亡是多么神秘，我们应该理解那些出于善意，试图在触电受害者尸检中找到线索而提出的惊人理论。早期的假说（19世纪80年代）倾向于认为是对中枢神经系统产生了影响，但随着广泛的公开辩论，重点转向了动脉和血液学机制以及呼吸骤停（即窒息）。尽管细致的动物实验逐渐证实触电致死是由于诱发心室颤动，但旧的假说在几十年里一直占据主导地位。即使在今天，神经源性和窒息性的解释仍偶尔出现。尽管经过了170年的研究，触电致死现象仍在不断催生关于其机制的新假说。
